Return Journeys: Charter-based Compensation Claims (not a request for assistance)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
I have been trying to discern something in relation to compensation claims in relation to TOCs' charters. This has come about because a claim I put in fairly recently (not otherwise mentioned on the forum) was rejected.

Using FGW's HSTs as an example, a journey qualifies for compensation if it involves a delay of a minimum of 60 minutes. However, this time is only applicable to one leg of the journey. So if a person is 45 minutes late in one direction, and then 45 minutes late on his return journey, he is due no compensation according to the FGW charter even though the overall delay in relation to the one "contract" between the company and customer (i.e. the one return journey) is 50% greater than the usual minimum.

Is this really fair? Whether it is or not, is there any reason for this to be the case? And has anyone else ever lost out for this reason?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Is this really fair?
Yes

Whether it is or not, is there any reason for this to be the case?
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and although it is a return ticket, it is clearly two separate end to end journeys.

And has anyone else ever lost out for this reason?
No, I've always acquainted myself with the rules before making a claim.
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
465
I

Using FGW's HSTs as an example, a journey qualifies for compensation if it involves a delay of a minimum of 60 minutes. However, this time is only applicable to one leg of the journey. So if a person is 45 minutes late in one direction, and then 45 minutes late on his return journey, he is due no compensation according to the FGW charter even though the overall delay in relation to the one "contract" between the company and customer (i.e. the one return journey) is 50% greater than the usual minimum.

Is this really fair? Whether it is or not, is there any reason for this to be the case? And has anyone else ever lost out for this reason?
Yes, why not? If a return journey is one "contract" it could be argued that if your train was 110 minutes late in one direction and on-time on the other on average you were only 55 minutes late, so deserved nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top